Posted on 01/21/2016 8:30:47 AM PST by conservativejoy
Last I heard about it it was a secured loan. Early reporting was a margin loan. Now it's a line of credit. My unsecured line of credit was secured by my accounts. If I didn't pay, I could cover out of my accounts anyway. It's really not unusual at all. That's what lines of credit are for.
And any risk of malfeasance is offset by the bare fact that it was reported. What idiot would intentionally report it and then try to get away with it later? How absurd is that.
Do you know how easy it would be to launder into cash? If he was being nefarious, that is how it would go down.
The biggest change in the Cruzes’ finances in 2012 was the addition of the two bank loans, each valued at $250,000 to $500,000, during the first half of the year. One was a margin loan from Goldman Sachs. Margin loans, which are secured by holdings in a brokerage account, are often used to buy more stocks, but can be obtained for almost any purpose.
The other loan was a line of credit from Citibank. Even if the Citibank loan did not go directly into the Senate campaign, it could have freed up other assets for that purpose. While the Cruzes were well paid — he made more than $1 million a year as a law partner, and she earned a six-figure income as an executive in Goldman Sachs’s Houston office — they also had big bills, including mortgage payments and full-time child care.
Both loans had floating interest rates around 3 percent, according to Mr. Cruz’s Senate disclosures, which appear to be generally in line with rates available to wealthy borrowers at that time. During the remainder of 2012, the Cruz campaign repaid Mr. Cruz for about half of the money he lent. His Senate disclosures show that he and his wife paid off the Citibank loan that same year. As for the Goldman Sachs loan, it remains outstanding, though the balance has been reduced to between $50,000 and $100,000.
Cruz is behind in the polls everywhere. In Iowa, Trump was ahead in the last 2 polls and in this one it is a statistical tie. I would say my statement has a lot of support.
You miss the point.
I am not saying Cruz did anything wrong except not reporting.
I don’t know the reason he didn’t report it any more than you do so you are right about people having to choose whether or not to believe him.
Your saying the big banks would support Trump is dishonest because he is not accepting that type of donation. They may want to try to buy him but they have not been able to.
No - Because the Stock portfolio being at GS would be evident, cashed out or not... And busybodies like yourself would still come up with some screwy theme.
Trump is going to make Levin’s head explode before it’s over.
That is the difference between a professional like Limbaugh, and the wannabe posers.
Nobody, but nobody was trying to hide anything.
That’s one theory. There is also a known factor of the more one explains, the more likely they have something to hide. In ‘real’ life, vs. this circus we are all observing, when I run across someone who adds layers to their ‘story’, it’s generally due to trying to bury the truth.
I’ll let the FEC sort it out. It really doesn’t matter one way or another what I think about it.
So? You and I probably do not have the assets and income that the Cruz family does. I am sure Donald gets multi-million dollar loans just on his signature alone all the time. I don’t see you claiming that makes Donald unfit for office...
Wrong. If Trump was getting a million dollars in loans from Goldman & Citi, failed to denote the money was used for a Senate campaign and then cast Senate ballots in support of them I would seriously investigate the issue and question my support of him.
If it’s such a simple issue Cruz can clear the air today. That he has not only leads one to believe that where there is smoke there is fire.
I am now going to use the same perverse logic on you, because that was a set up that I did.
Goldman would of course not need to put actual money in the Trump campaign, but they would certainly do a sweet deal on construction financing for the Donald.
I now contend that they did, but I have no proof...[sarc]
Powerful businessmen get favors all the time, but you can’t prove it. Sweet deals for one project simply free up funds for another..
And yes, I do know why he did not report the personal money on the proper form, although it was reported elsewhere.
He said it was a paperwork error. The only error he could have made was not to report on the required receipt.
With the margin of error at 3.7% it can also mean that Trump is ahead at 29% and Cruz down at 23%. Just the facts!
<><><><
Or Cruz 30.7 and Trump 21.3.
Margin of error cuts both ways.
Levin is done as far as I am concerned. This sick fool has no idea who Cruz is and hates Trump.
Mark has known Ted Cruz for many years before you ever knew him. Mark has said he likes Trump and will vote for him if he gets nomination. I will not, no more liberals for me.
Where is the exact text of the instructions that Cruz acted on?
How did Trump get millions from Soros exactly? He is only accepting small personal donations for his campaign and no PACs.
Cruz hides the loans during his campaign. He pulled a Hillary,I forgot.
That is a flat out lie. He put it on one form and not another one.
“If you listened to the tape, Levin was quoting an FEC Commissioner.”
Yes I did, and Levin is proven right once again!
Trump Lie?
I don’t believe it
The money from the loan is in the FEC database as a gift to his own campaign.
But the error is insignificant, because these fund tranfers, loans etc are all reported in multiple places. It just did not make it onto one datat base, and that data base is comprised of the zillions of receipts written when someone, anyone, makes a contribution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.